Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by seafarer1939, Apr 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why left leaning,pinko judges who dress like girls and act like fools can overturn the laws of the elected Government?
    Our people are dying abroad yet the judges say we cannot deport hardline terrorist leaders residing illegally in this country!
    WE elect MP's not these stupid judges who dine in the best clubs and over rule our parliament laws.
    I despise these out of reality people.
    Still they are always protected so that's ok then!
    When will we boot out those who want to kill us?
  2. These judges seem to live lives in another world. However they interpret the law and as such perhaps the government is more to blame for making laws which are open to interpretation.
    Now perhaps they are right and these people cannot be extradited to certain countries. So why not find a country which is acceptable and which would give them a home.
    Everyone is on a winner, we get rid of a terrorist, the third party country receives him and then deports him to the country in which he is wanted for trial.
  3. I personally believe that this is the latest skirmish in a long running battle between the Judicial elite and the Labour Govt (who I'm no great fan of) over who controls the legal system. As I said I'm no fan of Tony and Gordon, but at least we can sack 'em, these senior Judges are appointed by their own and are completely unaccountable to the British Public - even though we pay for them. This should be a political decision, reflecting the will of the British public - and not left to an un-elected Judiciary who want to establish the primacy of the RULE of law (not to be confused with the Rule of the Road).
  4. Judges are selected by the Lord Chancellor(a political appointee)and appointed by H.M.The Queen,on the advice of the PM(another political post)Judges are selected to give interpretation to the laws drafted by politicians.If the politicals can't frame the law to rreflect the will of the people then it is with the politicians that we must argue,not the Judges.

    Edited for spelling
  5. I bow to your superior knowledge over the selection process for Judges, but I still believe that there is an ongoing battle between the Judicial elite and the Politicians over supremacy in the legal system. Whilst I fully recognise the benefits of an independent legal system I am also certain that Parliament should create law and policy, on our behalf, which we can influence every 4 to 5 years, and the Judicial system should apply it. The law and policy set by the Government should reflect the will of you, I and the remainder of the majority of the British electorate. Personal agendas should not be allowed to put us at risk in our homes.

  6. Because our elected government signed us up to the Human Rights Act in the first place. :threaten:

    Of course, all of those people who said at the time that it would take dangerous precedence over British laws and could be a dangerous subjugation of our own rights, privileges and protection were called Xenophobic, reactionary far right bigots.

    As always, New Labour knew best.


    As the Good Book once said, you reap what you sow. Or in more modern parlance, one dumba*s decision is all it takes for something major to come along and bite you on the ar*e.

    The worst thing about it is they dont have the balls to say 'sod that' and stick his sorry terrorist backside on the first plane out of here despite what the judge says!!!!

  7. Er, the door swings both ways. These'll be the same judges who are trying to protect our soldiers, sailors and airmen via ensuring the much-maligned Human Rights Act is applied on active service as it is the only means of ensuring the MoD sends our personnel out to fight with the required equipment, and they have also recently prevented Des Browne 'gagging' inquests. Bit of balance wouldn't go amiss in this thread. Also the substantive point about the HRA is I think irrelevant because from what I remember we are already subject to the ECHR as part of our European agreements; the HRA was a PR stunt and a means of preventing so many cases getting referred to Europe where they would have the same outcome.

    Judge warns MoD on poor equipment Sending British soldiers on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could breach their human rights, a High Court judge has ruled.

    Mr Justice Collins said human rights legislation could apply to military personnel on active service.

    The ruling could affect the way future military inquests are held.

    An attempt by the government at the same hearing to restrict critical language used by coroners at such inquests was rejected by the court.

    The request for inquest guidelines came in a test case relating to Scottish soldier Pte Jason Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke in Iraq.

    Lawyers for the Ministry of Defence had argued that it was "impossible" to give soldiers on active service "the benefits of the Human Rights Act".

    But the High Court ruled service personnel were entitled to some legal protection "wherever they may be".

    The decision was a legal defeat for Defence Secretary Des Browne, who also had his bid to ban coroners from using phrases such as "serious failure" in verdicts rejected.

  8. As Mophead says its the Pollies and their staff of appointees and civil servants who draft the law. The Britsh Legal System then allows Lawyers and Judges to argue for ages over the meaning of a comma in the 15th line of page 657 Vol.11 of VI Vol's.

    For example when the Breathalyzer first hit the streets the law said it could only be administered by a Police Officer in Uniform. Hence if you had no whistle on display were not wearing your cap/helmet/tie/tunic Judges held you were not in uniform and threw the case out. About 10 years later some brave Judge finally said, "Don't be stupid in no way did the writers mean exact uniform with the medal ribbon in its correct place and upheld a conviction" until then lawyers many of whom move on to be judges had made bundles of money get drunk drivers off.

    So its the Pollies fault again.


    PS. Change the legal system from Adversarial to Napoleonic may help.
  9. I do wish people would stop bashing the Human Rights Act. For those who would care to read the legislation (thereby discounting the Daily Mail's readership and editorial teams), the HRA was largely drafted based on UK contributions. Law such as the HRA is what makes a nation civilised - just ask someone in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and other hell holes where human rights don't get a look in. Just because we, the UK, don't get to execute people indirectly or directly is not a reason to stomp over it and bleat about the "human rights do-gooders", much in the same way that people bang on about "'elf and safety" and "data protection" (2 other misrepresented pieces of legislation).
  10. This would be the same judges who try & stop Government/politicians trying to do away with the rule of law to suit their own weasly agenda.
    Guardian: SFO/BAE arms investigation

    Can't have it both ways, we either have:
    An independant (ok, I know it's not totally independant) judiciary & accept it when they point out that the Gobment couldn't frame laws to get themselves out of the proverbial paper bag
    Thatcher/Bliar/Broon et al stopping criminal investigations, coroners complaints etc because they can.

    edited for dyslexic keyboard causing mong speeling
  11. I would not employ one to empty my spittoon.

Share This Page